Skip to main content

Full text of "Rapid Population Growth Consequences And Policy Implications"

to 25.99 in 1967. These are the parts of Asia with little prejudice against birth control, with energetic and ambitious people, and with the longest and most intense contact with the outside world. Perhaps more encouraging is the fact that one of the developing countries of Latin America, Costa Rica, showed a fall from a crude birth rate of over 50 about 1955 to 41.75 in 1966.
Increases in birth rates over similar recent periods have also occurred. Jamaica's crude birth rate went from 33.87 per 1,000 in 1951 to 39.79 in 1963; Honduras from 42.38 in 1957 to 44.20 in 1966; French Guiana from 31.95 in 1961 to 35.21 in 1964. The last case undoubtedly reflects improved registration of births, and we do not know to what extent the other cases do as well. But a rise in birth rates with the onset of modernization is not a priori unlikely. The relaxation of premodern constraints on reproduction (for example, permitting remarriage of widows in India) usually precedes the adoption of modern means of limiting reproduction, and in the interval between the one and the other the birth rate can rise. The fall in the death rate, insofar as it preserves the individuals through the ages of reproduction, will by itself raise the birth rate. Such linkages among demographic facts are taken up later, particularly in Appendix 1.
Very substantial differences among the countries of the world are shown in Appendix 2, where each country is represented by its latest data. Birth rates range from about 50 per 1,000 population down to about 16, a ratio of three to one, and rates of natural increase from about 35 per 1,000 down to 0 or less. These gross differences in the contemporary cross section have been noted by many writers.
Less often referred to is the comparison between the less developed world today and the countries of Europe when they were starting their modern advance. It might be supposed that Europe of the late 18th century was in a condition demographically resembling that of the tropics today. We shall see that this is not so, and indeed the differences are very great.
The Sweden-Honduras Resemblance and Contrast
In this limited space we cannot discuss all countries, or even all of those for which reliable data can be found. Let us again focus on one less developed country of today and compare it with one less developed country of the early 19th century. The contrast between Honduras of 1966 and Sweden of 1800 tells much about how the world has changed over the interval. The Honduras 1966 population was 2,363,000, and Sweden's 1800 population was 2,352,000—for all practical purposes identical. In respect to national income Sweden was undoubtedly much higher. The labor force of both was engaged largely in agriculture. Both are somewhat mountainous countries, facing an ocean (both Atlantic and Pacific in the case of Honduras).he rate of natural increase. For a population that is rapidly increasing, however, this is lessh to prove troublesome. control. Dr. Hilton Salhanick has observed that some women practicing the rhythm method will break or lose their thermometers at the critical juncture in theirright, therefore alwayshas some c